• Karabuta (8/8) Aug 16 2016 Looking through documentations for the various packages available
• jmh530 (2/11) Aug 16 2016 How about that standard applies to phobos while we're at it?
• Karabuta (2/15) Aug 17 2016 Why not?
• Chris Wright (18/27) Aug 17 2016 Something like:

Karabuta <karabutaworld gmail.com> writes:

Looking through documentations for the various packages available 
in the dub registry, I noticed that some packages have very good 
documentation whilst others are quite not there yet. ...

Therefore I suggest the community put-up some kind of 
documentation guideline to standardize the learning curve for 
packages/libraries. The IPFS project (ipfs.io) has something like 
this which makes some things easy to pick up and has motivated me 
to suggest this idea. What is your opinion on this?

jmh530 <john.michael.hall gmail.com> writes:

On Tuesday, 16 August 2016 at 19:59:16 UTC, Karabuta wrote:
 Looking through documentations for the various packages 
 available in the dub registry, I noticed that some packages 
 have very good documentation whilst others are quite not there 
 yet. ...

 Therefore I suggest the community put-up some kind of 
 documentation guideline to standardize the learning curve for 
 packages/libraries. The IPFS project (ipfs.io) has something 
 like this which makes some things easy to pick up and has 
 motivated me to suggest this idea. What is your opinion on this?

How about that standard applies to phobos while we're at it?

Karabuta <karabutaworld gmail.com> writes:

On Tuesday, 16 August 2016 at 21:05:29 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
 On Tuesday, 16 August 2016 at 19:59:16 UTC, Karabuta wrote:
 Looking through documentations for the various packages 
 available in the dub registry, I noticed that some packages 
 have very good documentation whilst others are quite not there 
 yet. ...

 Therefore I suggest the community put-up some kind of 
 documentation guideline to standardize the learning curve for 
 packages/libraries. The IPFS project (ipfs.io) has something 
 like this which makes some things easy to pick up and has 
 motivated me to suggest this idea. What is your opinion on 
 this?

 How about that standard applies to phobos while we're at it?

Why not?

Chris Wright <dhasenan gmail.com> writes:

On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 19:59:16 +0000, Karabuta wrote:

 Looking through documentations for the various packages available in the
 dub registry, I noticed that some packages have very good documentation
 whilst others are quite not there yet. ...
 
 Therefore I suggest the community put-up some kind of documentation
 guideline to standardize the learning curve for packages/libraries. The
 IPFS project (ipfs.io) has something like this which makes some things
 easy to pick up and has motivated me to suggest this idea. What is your
 opinion on this?

Something like:

* Purpose / features

Sell me on your project in two sentences. Then talk about what other neat 
or handy things the project does.

* Installation

How to install it, if there are any non-obvious steps. For instance, if I 
have to install any external libraries, like GTK+ or libevent.

This should include an up-to-date dub.json dependencies line.

* Code examples

For the most common use cases, a human-readable description of what the 
use case is, followed by a code example implementing that use case. This 
should include import statements.

* Any important caveats to use

eg: in order to use this, you must compile with a specific version flag. 
Assumes Gregorian calendar transition happened on 15 October 1582, before 
which the Armenian calendar was in use.

* License